Friday’s appeals court ruling in the New Jersey case goes further than a July 2024 ruling from a federal judge, who said that the state’s ban on AR-15s specifically was unconstitutional but upheld the provision barring larger magazines.

The third US circuit court of appeals said on Friday in its opinion that the state’s ban on all semiautomatic rifles it deems to be “assault firearms” and its restriction on “large capacity ammunition magazines” were unconstitutional.

New Jersey’s attorney general, Jennifer Davenport, a Democrat whose office defended the law, told the Associated Press that the decision is “as unfortunate as it is legally incorrect”.

“Gotta maximize the body count of school children”

-These judges, probably

  • OwOarchist@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    9 days ago

    I, for one, am stoked about the renewed opportunity to buy (or make) more effective weapons for fighting fascists with.

      • UPGRAYEDD@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        9 days ago

        People ask what steps can help get gun control passed. We could start by understanding the language and meaning of words around guns and gun culture. Im all for gun control, but getting these things wrong is the same complaint we liberals complain about when they misquote global warming statistics, or life starts at conception.

        The definitions matter. A shared reality matters. If we cant use the correct language, they wont even start to listen.

        • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          9 days ago

          The definitions matter only when you want to nitpick. Reasonable goal is to limit access to guns. I don’t need to know the difference between single action and double action guns to do that. Mandatory psychological examination, background checks and strict requirements should be universal, not depend on type of guns.

          • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 days ago

            Mandatory psychological examination, background checks and strict requirements should be universal

            Should we have these as requirements to be able to vote?

              • RamRabbit@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                7 days ago

                Why? If someone can be stripped of their rights, why not strip that same person of more rights?

                You undermine them all when you fight for infringements on any.

                • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 days ago

                  Oh, you’re the “ConstiTutiOn Says I can HaZ Gunz” type of a person. You know what I think about it, I know what you think. We can stop here and move on.

      • RamRabbit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        It is really so much to ask for The Guardian to be accurate in their reporting?

        Assault rifles are still banned in New Jersey, to my knowledge. The court case didn’t touch on them at all.

      • Triumph@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        9 days ago

        And those modifications are already illegal for any semi auto firearm.

        It’s just a 5.56 (usually) semi auto rifle. There are others that aren’t AR-15s.

        • Sunflier@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          And those modifications are already illegal for any semi auto firearm.

          The modification being illegal isn’t much of a deterent to mass murderers.

          The only real effective way to limit their scope of killing is to limit their access to the underlying tool: the AR15. Someone’s scope of killing by modifying a 9mm handgun with extended grip =/= modifying an AR15 with extended grip. They differ in all sorts of capabilities: accuracy, capacity, recoil, etc.

          • Triumph@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            9 days ago

            If everything that could be used to kill someone was made illegal, we wouldn’t have very many things.

            • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              9 days ago

              Killing Attacking one person with a hammer vs shooting up a school with a rifle or handgun are not even in the same galaxy.

            • Sunflier@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              9 days ago

              We’d certainly have more kids reach adulthood, and I didn’t say EVERYTHING. I am merely saying ban AR15s and the like.

                • Sunflier@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 days ago

                  Ban the weapons of war that are preferred by mass shooters. Its like keeping heroine away from the general public to limit the creation of heroine addicts.

              • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                9 days ago

                the primary argument that has been successful for John Deere against right to repair is that if they don’t block it, then farmers will just bypass emissions controls. Bypassing is already a crime, but unlikely to ever be prosecuted.

                Similarly the fact an AR15 could be illegally modified is not a reason to ban it.

              • green_goglin@thelemmy.club
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                13
                ·
                edit-2
                8 days ago

                Yes, there are “handguns” which could achieve this speaking broadly in terms of ballistics. Point being a stock meant/intended to be shouldered is the only legal distinction between a pistol and a rifle in the US. I understand where you’re coming from but closing loopholes like I just described is a much more feasible path to addressing this problem as opposed to outright pushing to outlaw all semiautomatic firearms entirely. Regardless, my comment was meant to highlight that a ruger mini14 is essentially the same rifle as an AR15 however seemingly because of a wood furniture aesthetic and/or “ranch rifle” marketing campaigns most states (NJ) don’t consider it an “assault style weapon” and as such nothing was ever achieved to begin with regardless of this courts decision.

                added context pertaining Mini-14: https://youtube.com/watch?v=w_ht2WkIuM0&pp=

                • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  9 days ago

                  I could buy the ‘ar-15 pistol’ conceit if they were actually pistols, firing pistol rounds from pistol length barrels. the whole 5.56 pistol because I just took the stock off and have a gas tube or arm brace is ridiculous stupidity gun goobs use to pick apart legislation. if it’s a 5.56 scaled receiver, it’s obviously not a pistol and I wish all this idiotic twisting and turning would stop.

                  the mini14 canard is bullshit too, I’ve only seen it in person in 7.62 and 5.56, which, again, only an utter moron would consider ‘pistol’ calibres.

                  meanwhile you really ignore the fact that these firearms are intrinsically not hunting / self defense tools but weapons, assault weapons, and easily become mass murder weapons.

                  feh.

                • Sunflier@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 days ago

                  Yes, there are “handguns” which could achieve this speaking broadly in terms of ballistics.

                  Well, there are Uzis

                  Point being a stock meant/intended to be shouldered is the only legal distinction between a pistol and a rifle in the US.

                  Maybe, but that extra length ensures a higher level of accuracy at a distance. Compare a stock rifle without a scope’s accuracy at a thousand yards to a stock handgun at a thousand yards. Both might be inaccurate at that range, but the scope of the inaccuracy would differ greatly. That “shouldering” the rifle adds stability.

          • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            8 days ago

            What if we removed the motivation to kill people at all? Or is that just impossible?

          • BlackVenom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            9 days ago

            Damn

            The legality of something doesn’t make it effective.

            So

            We should make Y illegal and that’ll be effective.

            • Sunflier@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              9 days ago

              Its easier to modify an existing tool to become illegal than it is to completely make the illegal thing from scratch, at least on a large scale.

            • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 days ago

              You’re gonna cry about having to register a firearm too, so why stop there. Just ban it, then compromise on registration at minimum.

              I own a handgun, I’m not against them. I am against how easy it is to get them. I bought one at a metro stop for cash, no paperwork, 100% legal in my state.

      • Ostrakon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        9 days ago

        They’re already violating the law making these mods dude. I doubt they would stop at legal acquisition.

        Bump stocks are absolute ass for any sort of accuracy, and should absolutely be banned. Perhaps the worst way to enable full auto on any gun.

    • MushuChupacabra@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 days ago

      Civilian AR-15s aren’t assault rifles. AR doesn’t stand for assault rifle…

      AR-15s are a very popular choice amongst mass shooters, when the goal is to maximize mass casualties.

      So they’re only used as highly effective assault rifles.

      For the sake of accuracy, AR-15s are Soft Fluffy Friendly rifles.

      • RamRabbit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 days ago

        So they’re only used as highly effective assault rifles.

        Mine is used to put holes in paper and trash. Same for every one my friends own.

        The horror.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          Yes, absolutely.

          For example, I care more about the thirteenth amendment (the slavery one)than the 27th (the one about Congress getting pay raises)

          • RamRabbit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            You don’t need to sacrifice either. All rights are to be protected.

            Importantly, by working to kill one you undermine the foundation they all stand on. For why can’t one right be ignored if you fight to ignore others?

            • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              Where did I say anything about sacrificing amendments?

              Jesus Christ, I thought Lemmy was better than reddit but it’s like nobody even fucking bothers to actually read what people say.

              Some are more important than others. Not sure why this is a controversial thought, or how it means I want to “sacrifice” any of them.

          • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            The right of the state to keep slaves as punishment? That’s a weird thing to care about.

            • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              WAIT, ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT THE AMENDMENT STILL ALLOWS FOR SLAVERY FOR PUNISHMENT?!!

              NO WAY. I WILL NO LONGER CARE ABOUT IT ABOLISHING CHATTEL SLAVERY. I THANK YOU.

              If you think that’s a reason to not care about the thirteenth amendment, then you’re honestly fucking stupid.

              Yeah dude, we should have just let slavery continue until we could get it perfect. Who cares about actual slaves who have been doing this shit for generations, the amendment wasn’t perfect so they’ll just need to wait.

  • tidderuuf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    9 days ago

    “Gotta maximize the body count of school children”-These jusges, probably

    “Because bans on AR-15s magically stopped school shootings in the U.S.”

    • Pro fascism Bootlickers, probably
  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    8 days ago

    Glad that the constitution still matters.

    Now let’s add the worker’s bill of rights to the constitution so that the material conditions of society are improved and mass shootings are even less common, and suicides decrease.

  • Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    8 days ago

    It’d be hilarious if a bunch of black people, lgbtq and immigrants started picking these up in droves and then they suddenly revisited this topic.

    • RamRabbit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Gun control has often been enacted for racist reasons. Yet one more reason to be excited the rights of the people were upheld today.

      • Talcosis@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 days ago

        And gun control is often repealed when the dominant group in society wishes to increase violence against minorities.

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          Boy that’s a real convenient generalization there. Any time the people are allowed more rights it’s for racist reasons, therefore more rights should be restricted?

          But also the state already has carte blanc to be racist, they have a monopoly on force and justice. They don’t need to give the citizens any rights if they just want to be racist.

          • Talcosis@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            No, you’re right. We should never examine why anything happens as long as it increases rights.

            You’d be cool with my right to punch you in the face, wouldn’t you?

            • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 days ago

              Glad people like you self-select against having dangerous objects in their possession.

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      You share values of banning minorities from owning firearms with racist haters? Telling on yourself here…

    • Sunflier@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Ah! So, there aren’t enough children being murdered in schools in Illinois? You must think that we need to have more dead children.

    • RamRabbit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      They will. Such laws are being struck down all over the country.

      It’s amazing how many people are OK with their state government wasting money and infringing people’s rights with blatantly unconstitutional laws like these that ban arms in common use.

      • Fishnoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        Normally I would support reasonable gun bans, but currently the Illinois ban just leaves its citizens woefully under armed in the event they need to defend themselves from federal overreach.

        We should be able to arm ourselves as well as our enemy does.

  • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    9 days ago

    I hate this fucking country and the people in it.

    Refuse to even consider not owning a fucking ar-15, and for what? So you can feel tough? Certainly nobody is using them to actually fight tyranny.

    And you sure as shit don’t need AR-15s to hunt.

    I guess the most important thing is that you feel big and tough when you hold it.

        • TubbyMarmot@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          8 days ago

          You should own one if you are in a marginalized group or consider yourself an ally. The opressors have them, so should you.

        • RamRabbit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          8 days ago

          You don’t need to share {insert opinion}. We should make sharing that opinion illegal.

          Civil rights are important and you don’t get to chop them up piecemeal.

          • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            People act like they’re picking which DLC to download for a game. If the 2nd doesn’t matter, the same can be true for the rest.

    • cy888@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 days ago
      1. AR15 shoots 223 which is a small cartridge,egal to use in some states because it is underpowered.

      2. True, AR15 is less likely to be used to fight tyranny. For that, the award goes to the AK47.

    • RamRabbit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      And you sure as shit don’t need AR-15s to hunt.

      For deer, yep, an AR-15 chambered in the standard .223 is generally considered too weak. You need something more powerful to ensure a humane kill.

      For mid-sized animals like wolf and wild hog, it’s the right size. Though, even for those, many would consider an AR-15 chambered in the standard .223 to be too weak still.

  • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 days ago

    In many states, AR-15s are classified as assault weapons, a legal term used to describe guns that lawmakers determine are meant to be used offensively rather than defensively, based on characteristics such as magazine capacity and the size of the weapon.

    This excerpt right here tells me all I need to know. The state holds the right to decide what can be used “offensively and defensively”. Defeats the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment and they were 100% correct to strike this down. They should be limiting modifications designed to kill large numbers of people like extended mags and switches. The AR-15 is a semiautomatic rifle and in my opinion doesn’t fit the bill.

  • Klox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    9 days ago

    I’d be fine with this if the people responsible for these guaranteed future outcomes were held to account. Until we have a justice system that reflects fair penalties on poor leadership, we’re fucked.

  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Don’t like guns? Don’t own one.

    Dont like drugs? Don’t take them.

    Don’t like abortion? Don’t get one.

    Dont like religion? Dont worship one.

    • Sunflier@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      Don’t like guns? Don’t own one.

      How does my not owning a gun relate to my kid at school when their school is getting shot up by a third party with an AR15?

      • criscodisco@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 days ago

        The reason they don’t want gun bans despite children being murdered in school is because they want parents afraid of a public education. They want education only for those that can afford a private school and all the security it can afford. It is the only logical conclusion as to why we are doing absolute nothing about this.

        They don’t want to improve the material conditions that create mass shooters and gang violence. They don’t want to fund mental healthcare. They don’t want to do anything other than sit back, rake in billions, and watch the peasants kill each other over scraps, or go insane and blow away a school full of other working class children. It’s a disgrace.

  • SabinStargem@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 days ago

    Speaking as a leftist, good.

    If the time comes to hold up American democracy, individuals will need some firepower. The initial years of civil war against the Trump Regime will be very messy, with shattered supply lines and improvised militias handling a fair bit of the conflict.

    The more decent folks who possess some form of powers, the better.